Presidential campaign-2018 was not as boring as we expected. At least already because she asked us some interesting questions, political and philosophical. And to put a competent question is often more important than to get him (impossible) answer.
The main question — whether to participate in elections at all if the outcome is predetermined?
photo: Natalia Muslinkina
Well. Known was the outcome of all presidential campaigns in Russia since 2004. And the elections-2000 knew in advance the winner, with one caveat: don’t it was immediately clear just enough for one round. Enough, as always then. Even pergatory the success of Dmitry Medvedev in 2008 did not cause the slightest doubt, although then-first Deputy Prime Minister, unlike his older policewala, among the idols of the Russian people has never belonged.
This is a key feature of monarchical ritual in our country: the main election is actually a referendum on the legitimacy of power, which has already been formed. No more and no less. The legitimacy of the passes including the order of succession, reigning from father to son of state like Mr. Putin, Mr. Medvedev 10 years ago.
So in this sense, the 2018 elections are not anything outstanding sparkle.
They stand out against the background of the past 18 years, probably only one reason: the presence of two new competitors bright spots in Federal politics. Ksenia Sobchak (formally nominated from the party “Civil initiative”) and Pavel Grudinina (coming from the Communist party, not being a Communist).
Remaining out of the campaign because of the outstanding criminal record, opposition leader Alexei Navalny urged in the meantime to boycott the elections in the format of “the strike of the voters.” The main stated goal: reducing the turnout of Russians in the elections and thereby the level of legitimacy their undoubted winner of Vladimir Putin.
Basic argument: who goes to the polls — the idiot, because even in Wikipedia has been written that President 2018 will be (remain) g-n Putin. (The term “idiot” used by Mr. Navalny literally.) And this applies both to opponents of the incumbent President (for Bulk, such voters have no moral right to legitimize the electoral farce) and his supporters (why the hell to waste time and strength in a wet March day, when everything is clear; it is better to spend time with family / bottle).
I don’t subscribe to the current-future President. I will never not vote for him. So my humble vote is with the opposition party. (Although in its pure form, I do not opposition, because it does not a politician or claim to any elective office, as it is supposed to do a professional representative of the opposition.)
And from the depths of my soul frondiruyuschie I would like to say something to the ideology of “strike”.
I see another basic approach to the participation / non-participation.
For without Putin voter motives to go to the polls is two.
And.) In the list of candidates is who you personally like.
Bel.) This is not in the list, but you want to maintain the fact of the nomination to the national forefront of new, not yesterday’s.
If not A) and not B), then, of course, can not walk.
But I want to bulk parse the arguments of the second order, more detailed and extensive.
My counterargument: if Navalny was included in the coveted list, it would mean that the AP it has also been agreed. Otherwise, in modern Russian policealnej does not happen. This would turn it into a fake statistician?
2. Argument: without the participation of A. A. Navalny’s election has ceased to be competitive.
Contragent: what part? For example, Alexei would get even prohibitively 20% of the votes (more about don’t dream of even the most ardent of his fans). But Vladimir Putin, then, for example, — 57-60%, also winning convincingly in the first round. And that — in this case, elections would have to be with navalnitsa point of view, to be fully competitive, absolutely fair, etc.? Does this mean that, in order to take part in the elections, Mr. Navalny was aimed not at the victory, and the status of legitimator someone else’s victory, as it was on elections of the mayor of Moscow in 2013?
3. Argument. Low turnout delegitimiziruet obvious winner.
Counter — their two.
First, relevant experts, for example specialist on electoral statistics physicist Sergei Shpilkin and co-chair of the movement ‘Golos’ Andrei Buzin, their in-depth calculations clearly showed that the decrease in turnout due to voters without Putin will be more than offset by the increase in the percentage of votes cast for the Supreme ruler. Roughly speaking, 80% of the votes for Mr. Putin with a turnout of 55% for the Kremlin is not worse than 70% of the votes with a turnout of 65%. To a decrease in turnout did lead to a noticeable drop obsevational voter, every opposition striker should be 2-2,5 striker-loyalist — motivated laziness / damp / family / bottle, not the aversion to the Russian leader. So campaigning for a boycott, to achieve the declared Mr. Navalny goal should be focused, rather, on the Putinists than their opponents.
Second, irrespective of whether Vladimir Putin will remain an entirely legitimate ruler of Russia — and in the eyes of most fellow, and West. Legitimacy — category nemetallicheskie. It is about the perception of the image of the ruler in the minds of observers, including those hostile to the object of observation.
So, why would the strike, if it is more or less successful, i.e., corresponding to the vision of its architects?
To the weakening of the opposition candidates, especially new ones. And not only in this election but throughout the political process of the upcoming years. How much these years had remained until the end of the Putin era.
Summing up all aforesaid, I come to one conclusion.
Genuine — and not claimed by the camp of Mr. Navalny — target “voters strike” is to leave Alexei A. main and only member of the Russian opposition. To eliminate the competition without Putin on the flank of Russian politics. Just as Vladimir Putin has done it within their own system of government.
Therefore the true statement of the problem the organizers of the boycott should look and sound like this: if you want A. A. Navalny was a single uncontested leader of the Russian opposition for years to come, in any case do not go to the presidential elections of 2018.
I fully admit that this problem is solved. And I in no way already because do not judge — do not condemn those who think such a task is correct and noble.
The main thing here — all clearly articulated. That was not excruciatingly painful for the decisions taken through half-closed eyes.
Another argument supporters of Nepogoda to the polls is this. The basic plot-2018: the struggle between good and evil. Evil — it is, of course, in the Kremlin. And where is the good? Candidates whose garment is whiter than snow Alpine peaks? They are not. And because there is no conversation about participation. Moreover, these arguments often lead people who for many years participated in close to the Kremlin political / non-political projects and literally until the recent past did not consider GDP as an absolute evil.
My counter-argument. On this side of the earth focus there is neither absolute good nor absolute evil. Is neither completely good nor 146% bad people. The boundary between good and evil is in every human heart, not between different groups of citizens.
Especially in politics. The guy I like is a candidate who I least dislike. Not the Savior of mankind, but a creature of flesh and blood. Elections — not Armageddon, even though they may appear as propaganda in consciousness / dimension. They’re human procedure. And if there is important question of replacement power, you can put it in another way: to support someone to increase the probability of a change of ruler in the future. It’s not today’s victory, but the contribution to the future success.
That’s why I go to these elections, losing no gentle reverence for my situational opponents. Life will continue after March 18, 2018, God willing.
The Bulk Business. Chronicle of events
Get short formal newsletter the best in the “MK” – subscribe to our Telegram.